Goldberg said distancing MT from NAVB was a good move to attract investment because investor would not have to worry about NAVB money problems or if it got acquired, etc.
What are the implications of this? e.g., Is MT now separate from NAVB and current shareholders get nothing is NAVB is sold?
"The strategy behind this is so that we can negotiate with investors and may know that if they put money into Macrophage, it won't be forced to do what Navidea needs. In case Navidea gets acquired or in case Navidea definitely needs cash, and that could force a transaction that would make it difficult for the [indiscernible] investor to realize the type of return they're looking to make."
. . .
"I think it's pretty clear for all of us, Navidea shareholders, that if Macrophage brought in a high-quality investor that put in $10 million, $15 million, with the expectation that, that investor is going to look for return and that return is going to be many years out because that's how long therapeutics take, but that value, all of a sudden, immediately accrues to the benefit of Navidea shareholders because we still -- we, Navidea shareholders, still own the vast majority, hopefully, of the entity, even after that investment."
Hopefully own? What would cause shareholders to NOT own Navidea after that investment?